PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS named, herein, have called in question the validity and propriety of the order dated -25 th of January, 1999 passed in S.A.R. Revision No. 136 of 1987 by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in exercise of his Revisional power under Section 217 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" whereby order of the appellate authority dated -19 th of January, 1987 has been set aside and possession restored to respondents.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that Martin Ekka and Bandan Ekka, the two petitioners approached the Special Officer having power to initiate proceedings under Section 71 -A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 with an application for restoration of the possession of land bearing Khata No. 51 Plot Nos. 634 and 635, measuring an area of 87 decimals and 1.00 acre respectively of village Tikratoli, P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi on the ground that the transfer of the land took place in contravention of the provisions of Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The aforesaid case was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 61 of 1978 -79. The Special Officer after putting the other side to notice and hearing the parties passed an order dated -15 th of May, 1980 dismissing the application. An appeal came to be preferred before the Additional Collector, Ranchi registered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 217 R 15 of 1980 -81. The Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Special officer and directed restoration of the possession of the land in favour of the original applicants vide his order dated -19 th of January, 1987. It is relevant to mention that the original authority had dismissed the application on the plea that the land in question was transferred in favour of one Baldeo Sahay in the year 1937 -38 in an auction sale. The said Baldeo Sahay after acquiring the rights over the lands in question transferred the same in favour of one Biruwa Oraon, predecessor in interest of respondents vide registered sale deed dated 06 th of December, 1956 and consequently a Mutation Case No. 53 R 27 of 1957 -58 came to be attested. The Special Officer, accordingly, ruled that the provisions of Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act being not applicable to auction sale, claim of the applicants is not sustainable. The appellate authority while setting aside the judgment came to the conclusion that no record whatsoever was produced before the Special Officer relating to the transfer of property, in favour of Baldeo Sahay in an auction sale and in absence of the record before the original as also the appellate authority order of Special Officer is not sustainable. The judgment of the Special Officer was accordingly set aside and direction issued for restoration of the property to the applicants. Being aggrieved of the order of the appellate authority, petitioner filed a Revision before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division invoking revisional jurisdiction, as no further appeal is permissible under the law. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that the application filed by the applicants was barred by time having been preferred after 12 years and the respondents being in adverse possession have a right to retain possession.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length. 1998 (1) BLJR 149 has no application to the facts of the case and hence the finding is liable to be set aside. He has also contended that there is no question of adverse possession, the possession being permissive, Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in the case of Md. Salimuddin @ Dhaiba v. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi reported in 1993 (1) P.L.J.R. 14, wherein, this Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 71 -A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act read with Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, held that the limitation for the purposes of this Section for filing an application is 30 years. To the same effect is another Full Bench judgment of this Court, reported in 1983 B.L.J.R. 609.;